New London airport

[Xeque]

In yesterday's Sunday Times (page 10 News). M.P. Boris Johnson has suggested that the idea of building a new London Airport in the Thames Estuary just off Canvey Island be re-examined.
Can anyone here explain to me why this would NOT be the best and (probably in the long run) cheapest solution for the future of air transportation for London?
Several months ago details of all the options for the four major London Airports were published and all the proposals (as I recall) generated an out-pouring of protest particularly from those who currently live close by or under the various flight paths.
To me the proposed additional runways at each of the existing airports would indicate an excessive amount of taxi time in order to get aircraft from (and back to) the terminal buildings.
A new London airport in the Thames Estuary with dedicated road/rail tunnel links as well as proximity to London City, Southend and Manston for feeder links would seem to be an ideal solution.

[rubik101]

The Isle of Sheppey looks pretty empty whenever I fly over it. Maybe the 4 million migrating and wading birds have some other opinion but to me it looks fine.

[WHBM]

Yes.

1. Airports built far out from the city they serve have a universal approach of being panned by their customers. Look at the waste of money at Montreal Mirabel (now closed) for a classic example. Fortunately for Air Canada they had Toronto which became their centre of operations to fall back on. It played a significant part in Montreal's loss of being the commercial centre of Canada in the 1970s-80s.

2. Passengers do not just go to/from the city centre. Look at Heathrow, only a minority do. What proportion of those going to Heathrow use the Heathrow Express from Paddington ? 5-10% ? Why else does the M4 spur out of Heathrow have 2 lanes turning west along the main M4 and only one lane towards London ?

3. Many passengers, most notably those in premium classes, have located their homes and to quite some extent their workplaces (where they can influence such things) to be close to the transport links at Heathrow. Only a limited number of business sectors (Finance, some media) now locate their offices in Central London.

4. Airports far out are commercially impractical for domestic operations, and these services depend on 50% connecting to overseas flights and 50% local domestic passengers (including many day returners). Split this market and you can lose the whole lot.

5. There would be just as much opposition to the proposal, particularly to its surface links, new town developments, etc, as there is to the current locations.

6. As a recent failed operator based at Manston will tell you, the lower Thames estuary/seawards has very little hinterland demand for air travel. 75% of the catchment area is water.

[Taildragger67]

Can anyone here explain to me why this would NOT be the best and (probably in the long run) cheapest solution for the future of air transportation for London?

Sure.

Because there are already three airports with four runways which are capable of high-capacity, long-haul aircraft. Two such airports are capable of handling 24-hour ops. Both airports have sufficient room for another runway each (one already has a kind-of half-a second runway anyway). One has lots of room for planned terminal expansion. Both have existing road and rail links into central London which could easily and quickly be upgraded to a world-class service. Both are closer to non-London catchment areas which are at least as big as that around Canvey.

Whilst both airports are well-established, one has left its expansion a bit late such that there are now zillions of nearby residents who would scream blue murder at further major expansion. The other has lots of open land and less locals around it and could expand before it gets built-in.

If the pollies had the cojones to get the ball rolling and made it cost-feasible for a few majors to go there...

Actually while we're at it, all this talk about EGLL getting a 'third' runway - it used to have six (and until quite recently, still had a 'third' - 23). OK, it was a cross-strip, but a bit of decent co-ordination and it could relieve a bit of pressure on the other two, surely? Eg. launch some RJs and 319s off it? Even extend the T/O starting-point to the north-west of 27R to get clearance over the buildings to the south on warm days?

[Torquelink]

And Boris said you could build an entire new airport on reclaimed land in the Thames estuary for less than the cost of putting in the third parallel runway at EGLL. Hmmm - and this is the man who wants to run London's budgets?

[robo283]

This was one of the options looked at in the Seventies during the search for 'London's Third Airport'. With Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Manston, London City, Biggin Hill and Farnborough serving the capital, this would be an ideal site for London's Ninth Airport :ok:

[Xeque]

Boris might be nearer the truth than one might think Torquelink. How much will it cost in reparations, relocations, compensation etc etc etc for all those who will need to bought out or relocated in order to provide the space for the new runway and terminal buildings at Heathrow?

[840]

Why not?

There are underused runways already at Sothend and Manston. If you're going that far out, those would be cheaper. Cheaper again may be putting money in to speed up the rail links to Birmingham and Southampton - bring those travel times to under an hour and they become feasible. Considering a high speed link to Birmingham and Manchester will have to be under consideration now the Channel Tunnel one is finished, diverting it through Birmingham Airport wouldn't be too much of a hassle.

There's another problem with building in the Thames Estuary and that is that we don't know what sea levels will be like in the future. In that case you have to build for a worst case scenario, which means lots and lots of money.

Ultimately, it'll go to the most economically effective solution and I can't see that being in the Thames estuary.

[robo283]

Whoops: forgot about Southend. Make that tenth airport

[Taildragger67]

840,

What such fast rail links will make feasible, is wiping out much of the (pointless) domestic air travel into various London airports - hence freeing up capacity at pretty well all of them. If all point-to-point domestic travel were by ground, I suggest you'd have loads of empty seats. Aggregate two or three A319s into a single 321 (or 767) from each of the main domestic airports timed to meet the main wave of evening intercontinental departures (for connecting traffic) and you've suddenly saved yourself a load of slot pairs.

Or, take the Dutch and Swiss model and have good, regular high-speed trains out of the airport railway station to each of, say, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. and likewise you're freeing up capacity. No-one flies long-haul into Amsterdam and then changes planes for Rotterdam; you go downstairs and get on a train.

BA could even consider code-sharing onto rail services (and this should be made easier as European rail operators move beyond Stephenson's Rocket and co-ordinate things a bit). Imagine being able to check-in for your flight to say, Sydney or LA at Gare du Nord, or Midi, or Centraal, 2 hours or so later be at Heathrow and just clear security and onto your flight. Easy. Probably time saved over having to schlep out to Roissy, Zaventem or Schiphol, do security, wait, taxi out to the Polderbaan (ie. drive half-way to London), stack over Biggin, land, taxi, go to the FCC, etc.

[840]

In some ways I agree, but that would seem to suggest a no growth scenario and even if domestic travel declines, I can see international, particularly long-haul increasing in future years. That would fill up any capacity freed from domestic services.

Also, I can't see any more than a London-Birmingham-Manchester/Liverpool high speed link being built in the next 15 years, so we won't see all domestic capacity moving on to the rails.

It has always struck me as particularly dumb that when the Heathrow Express rail link was built they didn't allow for trains that could go to Reading and on to Bristol/Cardiff or Oxford/Birmingham.

[Re-Heat]

Great idea - close to the new container port in the Estuary, close to the high-speed rail link, Crossrail can be extended from Abbey Wood, fewer people living in the area to complain.

Then again, we shouldn't be subject to mass planning by politicians - let the markets decide if there is demand for it...

[Andy_S]

There are underused runways already at Sothend and Manston.

Indeed.And with Heathrow bursting at the seams, the fact that those runways remain underused should speak volumes.....

The reality is that what we need is one world class purpose built airport, conveniently close to London yet sufficiently far away that the layout can be planned for maximum efficiency and minimum stress rather than dictated by site constraints. 4 runways, with room for at least one more, and 2-3 terminals with room for more if needed, but designed with ease of transfer in mind.

Personally I'm with those who say we should expand an existing airport rather than start over. And while Taildragger was a bit cryptic, if he was hinting at Stansted then I would agree. Unfortunately it would take a huge amount of political balls to bite the bullet and wind Heathrow down, and the infrastructure investment needed would be immense. But the alternative would be to stick with an increasingly unpleasant and congested alternative.

[Curious Pax]

As Andy S has implied, trying to build a new large airport without closing Heathrow just wouldn't work. However if it was closed, AND the necessary infrastructure such as road and rail was in place when the new airport opened, instead of a few years later then it could work. WHBM mentioned the lanes heading west on the M4 out of Heathrow - bear in mind that a lot of that traffic then swings north for the M40 and M1, so an airport to the east of London that had efficient road and rail links serving the north would be viable. The traffic isn't all heading for Wales and Cornwall!

One thing we all agree on - it'll never happen for both political and cost reasons.

[groundhand]

Quote

Great idea - close to the new container port in the Estuary, close to the high-speed rail link, Crossrail can be extended from Abbey Wood, fewer people living in the area to complain.


Also means no staff to work there!

[frostbite]

By the time it's built, and at what cost, how long will it have before the planet runs out of economical supplies of fuel?

[aviate1138]

The Planet will not run out of fuel[fossil] for the next century or so at least.

[General Zod]

Talking of code sharing with rail services, I remember way back in 1993 turning up at the train station in The Hague and being able to check in for my flight from Schipol, on Air UK, later that morning.

Can't be too difficult to arrange in today's information age, surely???

[Xeque]

You used to be able to check in for many international airlines leaving LHR at Paddington Station as I recall.

[intortola]

AA also used to let you check in at Victoria before boarding the Gatwick Express, was a great service, you got rid of the luggage early and went straight to departures at the airport.

[Walnut]

Why has no one mentioned Northolt as a domestic feed for LHR, it has a totally underused R/W, with plenty of space for a new terminal. I appreciate its used by the military and polititions but I don't see R/W sharing to be a security problem.
It would be very easy to build a high speed monorail into LHR, say into the new T1. Surely this would cause less upheaval than destroying a 1000+ houses north of 27R. in order to build the planned 3rd R/W. It would also be up and running much sooner.

[PAXboy]

EGLL has FAR too much of it's customer base out in Berkshire, Wiltshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Surrey etc. for this to work. You have companies that have spread out along the M4 corridor BECAUSE of LHR.

There are 60 years of commercial and domestic development based on EGLL. No one is going to change that. Perhaps it was possible 20 years ago to instigate a new international field in the South East but not now. Further, that new field was never going to be east of London due to the massive amounts of pax in the central and southern part of the UK.

Secondly, the development of 'PrivatAir' type operations will take load away from EGLL and free up capacity. Also, the development of CO using 75s from BRS and 76s (I think) from GLA and the expansion of MAN have reduced load from them, as much as the LCCs using regional fields. Yes, of course, much of this is new traffic but much of it removed from Heathrow.

Thirdly, Northolt has been discussed in here a number of times and the military keep a very firm hold on it and, IIRC, their flight paths do not intersect in a good way with LTMA. They are OK for the small number of operations that they have now but NOT for a mainstream operation. (I sit to be corrected) Not to mention the considerable number of wealthy people in that area who will successfully bellyache if Northolt were to be seriously put forward as the third runway. Personally, I think it was the obvious answer. Domestic services pax would never go to LHR and a rapid transit system could link the place to LHR. But it will not happen.

What will happen is that the status quo will be maintained. We have missed the chance to be an AMS, CDG, FRA and will just mosey along with dear old LHR as grotty as always. The objective of all concerned is just to slightly expand LHR but never too much in one go, so as to produce a really serious opposition. Slowly, slowly, they are catching the monkey.

Lastly, this is just electioneering by Boris. He knows that big biz will never allow LHR to close or be replaced. He is saying this because he is standing for an election in London. Therefore, there is no discussion to be had!

[Sir George Cayley]

YOU ARE ALL MISSING A POINT!!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I make no apologies for shouting as I said this more than 5 years ago.

If you subtract the passengers originating in the UK mainland who are forced to travel to Heathrow because they can't fly direct to the continent of their choice (or because the numpty tavel agent knows no better) then the London Airports would work.

Africa, South America, Australia and New Zealand. Can you commence your journey from the UK without a change of guage other than from Heathrow?

Vested interests from Government, Financial Institutions and the Travel Industry have failed to deliver effective Open Sky policies to the greater UK population for years. It's a bloomin' scandal.

I'm so angry now I need a shag!

Sir George Cayley

[Gonzo]

TD67,

Using the old 23 cut down the airport's capacity significantly. Also, to be able to use it in the first place, we had to clear eight stands of all aircraft, and another two of large aircraft.

[Bagso]

You can build as many airports as you like but if you havn't got the capacity in the air there is little point...... !!!!!!!

Look at the South East - Stansted, Luton, Heathrow, City, Gatwick, not to mention Northolt, Farnborough, Biggin etc.

If a number of flights had been allowed to originate in that part of the UK where the original demand existed we would not be in the situation where we are now.

In the 60s,70s,.and 80s, Pan Am, TWA, by way of example plus numerous other carriers all applied and failed to serve MANCHESTER, bilateral agreements at the time forced them all into Heathrow (..there was the option of Prestwick would you believe which through historical precedent was the ONLY designated "other" UK gateway.

Result - we now have a situation where it is more ecomonic to put a minimum of 20+ flights a day from Australia, India, Africa, China, Hong Kong into the Soth East. This despite 25% of these pax travelling to the North of England and indeed Scotland.

We reap what we sow !

[Taildragger67]

G. Cayley,

:ok:

Indeed. Maybe the arrival of the 787 will change the economic playing field a bit.

Bagso,

Also :ok: That is why Emirates now operate A330s from any non-London runway which will take one, into Dubai - where they then connect with zillions of points East and South.

If I am coming from, say, Birmingham, going to, say, Hong Kong, then no matter what I do, I will have to make a connection. Hmmm.... do I want to have (what will become) a one-hour flight to the crowded flea-pit that is Heathrow before joining my crowded 14-hour jaunt to HK, or will I do everything in the relative calm of BHX, have a better-organised and smoother and less-walking change in DXB, plus break the journey and maybe have a swim or a shower on the way... Hmmm.....

DXB getting too crowded? Oh, ok, no problem, I'll try EY or Qatar. All beating down my door for business.

This is why EK can fill two flights a day from DXB to each of Sydney and Melbourne and are now the biggest non-Australian operator into Australia. And why there's still room for Etihad and Qatar to come in. Much as I love London, not everyone who travels from the UK lives within the M25.

If BA were to arrange for regular trains to run from Birmingham to Stansted and put some meaningful L/H ops there, they would open up a whole new catchment which is currently going to the opposition.

The easy way to do this is to get BAA to change its charging structure. That is, LHR becomes the hub for long-haul - so keep charges low for long-haul and passengers connecting to/from long-haul, but ramp them up for short-haul point-to-point pax (eg. someone flying from Edinburgh or Brussels to London and not then connecting).

Then, drop charges for such point-to-pointers at other airports - eg. Stansted and Gatwick. The idea is to encourage point-to-point services away from LHR.

Also, keep charges for new long-haul entrants to Stansted low - so if, for example, Air Asia or Jetstar decide to come to London, the go to Stansted rather than try to get into LHR (or even LGW).

Why do airlines think there's a 'prestige' to operating to LHR? The place is a pit! The only reason I can think is so that they can then 'show off' their home airport with a stark comparison!

[PAXboy]

There is no 'decision' to be made. As beautifully exampled by Taildragger67, the regional options are now very good and breaking a long journey in the middle may be much better than breaking it after only one hour.

However, there is no possibility that train services between the main UK fields are going to happen and just look at how long it took to build the high speed line to the Chunnel for Eurostar??!!!

Nope, the 'decision' was to do nothing and it was taken repeatedly across the last 30 years. New routings have presented themselves and there is no desire or market for a new (and massive) international hub in the UK. So we can all relax. :zzz:

[Gonzo]

It is far cheaper to run a UK-Far East/Australasia service from the middle (i.e. Dubai or similar) than it is from one end. The savings on crew costs alone must be incredibly high.

[Taildragger67]

Gonzo,

Hence the only European carriers flying to Oz are BA and VS: BA because it's one route they could never be seen to be abandoning, and VS because BA go there! And they both only go to one port (BA having gone to MEL, BNE and PER in the recent past, plus all the hop-stops in the very early days). Even QF have a BKK CC base and very few CC from SYD and LHR bases do the whole trip (hence they are essentially operating matching point-to-point services as far as CC are concerned).

[Xeque]

More power to their elbow(s) :ok: Absolutely right. With all the alternative airports that ring London (see previous posts to this thread) there is absolutely no need to rip out whole communities and wreck peoples lives in order to satisfy greed.

[Skipness One Echo]

Quite right too. I've always found these environmentalists to be most consistent in their arguments and are very reasonable. Jolly good of their bosses to give them the day off work too. I mean the only reason that they want to expand Heathrow is that the free market wants it. Better to regulate the market and fragment the traffic across the UK, that way those nasty airlines will make less money. Hounslow as we all know is an area of outstanding beauty, and that horrid new Terminal 5 was build upon a traditional sewage works of historical interest. How we miss the smell.

Better to concrete over a whole new part of England rather than work with what we already have. I look forward to the day that I can get the train to New York and cycle to Dubai.

Leave the nice people of Sipson alone. It's a jolly quiet place full of community spirit, spoilt slightly by the noise of the occasional aeroplane. How it will be missed! We must NOT destroy a village ( one village ) for the greater good of the UK. That's just insane.

I'm off to hug a polar bear. I hear they like that. Listen to the voice of Thailand in the post above. He must be in the loop knowing my country SO well bless him.

[Xeque]

G'day Skippy! Got back yesterday after 3 months in the UK :ok:. Heathrow very passenger unfriendly as usual. The neanderthal bellowing "get yer shoes orf 'ere" whilst leaning against a barrier said it all really.
We do not need a third runway at Heathrow. There are some very good arguments against it in this thread. Only a small percentage of passenges actually arrive from central London to depart via Heathrow. Putting to one side the proposal for a new airport in the Thames estuary, using the many peripheral airports that already circle the city most of which have adequate runway capacity will make it more convenient for the majority of UK passengers proceeding overseas. Why waste money when the basic infrastructure is already in place?
PS - it's good to be back in a land of sanity :)
PPS - and I am a Brit actually

[Skipness One Echo]

That's what BA thought when they moved en masse into Gatwick. They lost a fortune as the revenue stayed at Heathrow and used other carriers. Needless to say the aircraft were moved back to Heathrow.
"Why waste money when the basic infrastructure is already in place?" Because the daft b******* still use LHR. As did you.

[HZ123]

What infrastructure is it that I have missed working at LHR for 40 years. Is it the M25 car park very shortly to get even worse, is it the tube which is bursting at the seems during rush hour and only favours those with no baggage. Is it the rail link or A4 / A30 ? I am amazed that we in the UK transport think that by continually tacking things on it will improve business, please lets not go with this imaginary infrastructure that are in place. Some of you are BA flight crew coming to LHR about twice a month so I doubt you are qualified to comment on what it is like for everyone else on a daily basis and some of you probably have never used it.

[CAP493]

AA also used to let you check in at Victoria before boarding the Gatwick Express, was a great service, you got rid of the luggage early and went straight to departures at the airport.
So did BOAC (Buckingham Palace Road, near Victoria) and BEA (Cromwell Road Air Terminal) before boarding the coach...

[Taildragger67]

BA had a full check-in at Victoria, in the shopping mall to the south of, and attached to, the main station concourse, until about 2002 or 2003. Just outside the check-in area there was an escalator down to the Gatwick Express platform so you could check in and go straight down to the train. Excellent facility.

[Xeque]

Here's a thought. Why don't we just have one giant check-in in central London and then despatch passengers with their carry-on bags on dedicated trains, coaches or limo's to whichever peripheral airport their chosen carrier happens to be sitting at? We used to have the West London Terminal (which operated in just the way I suggest) as well as the check-in desks at Victoria and Paddington (??? not really sure about Paddington). Anyway - no need for a third runway at Heathrow and we make better use of the airports we already have - Luton, Stansted, Gatwick, Northholt, Biggin Hill even Farnborough.

[Bagso]

Building a new airport presupposes that they then shut down Heathrow , Gatwick, Stansted and Luton and City ....which is not going to happen.

Would one major airport similar to say Chicago or Atlanta at least provide massive improvements in flow rate, which at the moment is governed by traffic trying to climb/descend and pass each other in opposing directions.

As has been mentioned numerous times you can build as many runways and terminals as you like but it is impossible to increase the main governing factor which is airspace. The CAA and NATS have indicated that there are no dramatic technical improvements on the horizon which will improve that situation.

...things might improve for you Southerners if you wernt so burdened with the Scots, Irish, Geordies and Mancunians all being forced into the South East.

[Taildragger67]

Yes there was a full check-in at Paddo. Another victim of the post-Sep 2001 downturn.

The 'giant central check-in' you suggest - it's called online check-in these days.

[Robing]

As some people may be aware the migration pattern of our feathered friends tends to follow the east coast. They have been doing this for rather a long time and it is one of the reasons why Cliffe was turned down.

It is also as well to remember that airspace is in rather short supply, particularly in The Clacton sector.

[Donkey497]

Tend to agree with Paxboy & Taildragger67. We'd be far better served by having better regional connections to the rest of the world rather than concentrating on the miniscule part of the country that lies within the M25.

From a personal point of view, as Paxboy suggests, it's more pleasant to break a long flight mid-way rather than after only an hour. My only exception to this is on an overnight flight home when I'm quite delighted to break the journey after a couple of hours have a decent meal at ground level then get as best a kip as I can before arriving back into EDI in the early-ish hours so that I can spend the rest of the day getting back into GMT.